Comparative analysis of 3D data accuracy of single tooth and full dental arch captured by different intraoral and laboratory digital impression systems

Ryakhovskiy, A. N.; Kostyukova, V. V.

doi:10.17116/stomat201695465-70

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies have used other measurement methods such as a coordinated measuring machine (CMM) and computed tomography machine, which are even more precise than a laboratory scanner in carrying out reference scans. This could be considered a limitation of this study, although the Zfx Evolution is widely considered a high precision reference scanner 12 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A resin model of all the natural teeth of an upper dental arch (including elements from #17 to #27) was scanned in order to obtain a 3D reference impression. For this purpose, Zfx Evolution (Zimmer Biomet, Palm Beach Gardens, FL), a widely recognized as being a high precision reference scanner, was used 12 . An independent laboratory specialized in measuring, designing and fabricating CAD/CAM structures to obtain a 3D digital reference (R data) was commissioned to acquire the reference model, using a fully automatic Zfx Evolution.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accuracy of 3D digital modeling of dental arches

Favero¹,

Volpato

Francesco

et al. 2019

Dental Press J. Orthod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The aim of the study was to verify and compare the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions obtained using two intraoral scanners and three scanning methodologies. Methods: A resin model created with dental 3-D printing was scanned by a reference scanner (Zfx Evolution - Zimmer Biomet, Palm Beach Gardens, FL) in order to obtain a 3D reference; the same resin model was then scanned with two different intraoral scanners (Zfx IntraScan and Carestream 3600 - CS 3600®, Carestream, Rochester, NY, USA) using: Technique A (from tooth #27 up to tooth #17); Technique B (from tooth #11 up to tooth #17 and then from tooth #21 up to tooth #27) and Technique C (from tooth #22 up to tooth #17, and then from tooth #12 up to tooth #27 - the MeshLab software v. 1.3.3 was then used to match the two scans). The scans obtained were superimposed over the reference scan by means of a software, and the volumetric discrepancies were calculated. Results: The mean results for the Zfx Intrascan scanner were: Technique A = 302.47 ± 37.42 µm; Technique B = 180.45 ± 29.86 µm; Technique C = 147.34 ± 28.23 µm. The mean results for the Carestream 3600 scanner were: Technique A = 303.59 ± 40.20 µm; Technique B = 181.53 ± 29.61 µm; Technique C = 142.28 ± 35.33 µm. Technique C, used by both scanners, produced less volumetric discrepancies compared to the other techniques. Conclusions: The scanning technique had a statistically significant effect on the quality of the scan (p< 0.0001), whereas the scanner did not present any significant influence (p= 0.91).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of 3D digital modeling of dental arches

Favero¹,

Volpato

Francesco

et al. 2019

Dental Press J. Orthod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of the posttreatment clinical models in the present study, 17 were obtained with a laboratory scanner (S600 ARTI; Zirkonzahn) that is adequately effective for clinical use, given a documented trueness of 65.9 ± 1.33 μm and precision of 20.7 ± 4.34 μm for entire-jaw scans [ 13 ]. For the other 13 virtual models, an intraoral scanner (iTero®; Align Technology) with a documented trueness of 9.8 ± 2.5 μm and precision of 7.0 ± 1.4 μm was used for this purpose [ 14 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maxillary expansion or contraction and occlusal contact adjustment: effectiveness of current aligner treatment

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To evaluate the precision of aligner (Invisalign®) treatment with the current material (SmartTrack®) in achieving expansion or contraction of the maxilla and occlusal contacts as simulated in the proprietary planning software (ClinCheck®, CC). Materials and methods Thirty patients thus treated were retrospectively evaluated. Four maxillary models were analyzed per patient: a pretreatment model, a scan-based CC model, a posttreatment clinical model, and a CC model reflecting the treatment outcome as initially simulated. Thirteen transverse parameters were measured on each model separately by two investigators. Occlusal contacts were also analyzed. Results The measuring method was validated by both investigators arriving at similar results for the effectiveness by which the simulated treatment goals had been clinically achieved. Significant differences (p < 0.05; Wilcoxon signed-rank test) were observed for transfer precision from the casts to the planning software and between the simulated and clinical outcomes. Intense occlusal contacts in the simulations materialized less common (≈ 2%) than ideal contacts (≈ 60%) in the clinical outcomes. Conclusions The effectiveness of achieving the simulated transverse goals was 45% and was generally not found to be better with SmartTrack® than with the previously used Ex30® material. Out of 100 simulated occlusal contacts, 40 will never materialize, and achieving around 60 will adequately ensure a clinically favorable contact pattern. Clinical relevance With the caveat that any overcorrection will to some extent reduce the precision, it seems perfectly possible to make deliberate use of overcorrection in current aligner therapies for transverse maxillary expansion or contraction.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, scanner accuracy is above this value and depends upon the digitalized area and the scanner type. Ryakhovskiy et al showed for a single tooth scan with the CEREC Omnicam (Dentsply Sirona Deutschland GmbH, Bensheim, Germany) a trueness of (25 ± 1) μm and a precision of (38 ± 3) μm [ 24 ], and Lee et al demonstrated a trueness of (14 ± 1) μm and a precision of (13 ± 4) μm [ 25 ]. An explanation for the differences may be the software version, which is not mentioned in the paper of Ryakhovskiy et al Indeed, Haddadi et al showed that the software version may have an impact on the accuracy of the scan [ 26 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A quantitative assessment of silicone and PTFE-based stamp techniques for restoring occlusal anatomy using resin-based composites

Klein¹,

Ohle²,

Wolff³

et al. 2021

Clin Oral Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Publications on stamp techniques for placing resin-based composite (RBC) restorations consist mainly of case studies. Furthermore, comparative studies are rare and no longer relevant to the materials tested today. Thus, two general techniques were investigated in this study. Materials and methods Standardized occlusion class I cavities were prepared in twenty-eight extracted caries-free wisdom teeth with unimpaired occlusal surfaces and restored with the RBC material Grandio®. Light curing of the final layer was performed either after removal of the stamp isolated with PTFE tape or by leaving a stamp made of transparent polysiloxane in place. CEREC scans of the RBC restorations placed (follow-up) were superimposed on scans of the unimpaired occlusal surface (baseline) and quantitatively analyzed with the software OraCheck with regard to volume change and gain or loss of layer thickness in six sectional planes. Results Assessing the excess material, there was no difference (p = 0.31) between the silicone technique (0.26 mm ± 0.02) and the PTFE technique (0.22 mm ± 0.02 mm). Nevertheless, the loss of tooth substance was significantly greater (p < 0.001) with the silicone technique (−0.29 mm ± 0.02 mm) than with the PTFE technique (−0.15 mm ± 0.02 mm). Conclusions With the PTFE stamp technique, less healthy tooth structure was removed during the finishing procedure and the stamp was more dimensionally stable. Clinical relevance The study shows the advantages and disadvantages of the investigated stamp techniques and helps the practitioner to choose an appropriate technique.

show abstract

Comparative analysis of 3D data accuracy of single tooth and full dental arch captured by different intraoral and laboratory digital impression systems

Cited by 9 publications

References 14 publications

Accuracy of 3D digital modeling of dental arches

Accuracy of 3D digital modeling of dental arches

Maxillary expansion or contraction and occlusal contact adjustment: effectiveness of current aligner treatment

A quantitative assessment of silicone and PTFE-based stamp techniques for restoring occlusal anatomy using resin-based composites

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About